A StarCraft II: Heart of the Swarm Teaser Trailer on Dailymotion is online, an apparent leak from the upcoming second installment in the three-part release of StarCraft II, Blizzard's real-time strategy sequel. Though leaked, this looks like it was created as a promotional material, suggesting more revelations about Heart of the Swarm may be near. Thanks GameSpot.

I'm sure it has a dedicated following in the competitive scene but it sure seems like Starcraft 2 was a disappointment to the rest of us. I can only speak anecdotally but out of the four steamgroups I'm in, I don't know anyone who still plays it. I stopped after the custom map failed to go anywhere, I think the proliferation of things like HoN and LoL probably took away a big chunk of potential player base there.

Guys, don't hate Blizz too much. Blizzard is one of the very last companies that concentrate on pc games. I hate their oh so long development times as much as you do, but at least they don't consolize their games to hell and back. ActiBlizz isn't the Blizzard of old times, of course, but nevertheless: don't bash the last few pc game developers too hard, you might miss them in the future.

Name a single event in history where hatred, fear, and greed helped to solve a crisis.

Flatline wrote on May 28, 2011, 17:38:My problem with SC2 is that while there may be a lot of missions, the overall gameplay length was somewhere around one campaign from SC2 since so many missions were completable in about half an hour. So despite claims to the contrary, it really is paying full price for 3 chapters.

Maybe you haven't played Starcraft 1 recently or something but most of its missions only took about a half hour to finish too. The only hour plus missions I can think of are the last mission of the original Protoss campaign and the last mission of Brood War.

Eh... I got significantly less gameplay and enjoyment out of SC2 than I did the original SC. It felt incomplete, the single player offering didn't actually tell a story (we need all 3 parts to get the story), and the game overall seemed... easier than SC1 (though the last mission was a little bit difficult). Multiplayer is the only robust offering, and I can't see that changing much in the next two releases, which I imagine are going to be full priced releases. If they're 30 bucks they'll be a decent value, but somehow I doubt it.

Let's be honest. If this had any other developer's name on it other than Blizzard there would have been hell and damnation over the initial offering of SC2.

You dare being honest about it!?!?

But yeah, I agree.To add, the story also suffered from lack of immersion. I didn't feel for a single second as being Raynor.The first one had people talking to the player, or describing, at least, for the player's benefit. In this one, everything is contained within Raynor. And it really took me out of the story.

You guys forget though. Blizzard can do no wrong. I'm still sticking to my guns they're the most overrated developer in the entire industry.

Flatline wrote on May 28, 2011, 17:38:My problem with SC2 is that while there may be a lot of missions, the overall gameplay length was somewhere around one campaign from SC2 since so many missions were completable in about half an hour. So despite claims to the contrary, it really is paying full price for 3 chapters.

Maybe you haven't played Starcraft 1 recently or something but most of its missions only took about a half hour to finish too. The only hour plus missions I can think of are the last mission of the original Protoss campaign and the last mission of Brood War.

Eh... I got significantly less gameplay and enjoyment out of SC2 than I did the original SC. It felt incomplete, the single player offering didn't actually tell a story (we need all 3 parts to get the story), and the game overall seemed... easier than SC1 (though the last mission was a little bit difficult). Multiplayer is the only robust offering, and I can't see that changing much in the next two releases, which I imagine are going to be full priced releases. If they're 30 bucks they'll be a decent value, but somehow I doubt it.

Let's be honest. If this had any other developer's name on it other than Blizzard there would have been hell and damnation over the initial offering of SC2.

You dare being honest about it!?!?

But yeah, I agree.To add, the story also suffered from lack of immersion. I didn't feel for a single second as being Raynor.The first one had people talking to the player, or describing, at least, for the player's benefit. In this one, everything is contained within Raynor. And it really took me out of the story.

SC2 was worth the purchase price for the mods (third party maps with totally different gameplay) alone, even though they've been slow to get going. I've had a ton of fun playing Desert Strike with friends against random opponents.

I would play the game more if it didn't force me to be available to my friends list. It would be very nice to have an 'offline' mode. Nothing quite like being in a heated 1v1 and having someone try to chat with you.

How are they going to handle mercenaries for zerg? That will be strange.

Flatline wrote on May 28, 2011, 17:38:My problem with SC2 is that while there may be a lot of missions, the overall gameplay length was somewhere around one campaign from SC2 since so many missions were completable in about half an hour. So despite claims to the contrary, it really is paying full price for 3 chapters.

Maybe you haven't played Starcraft 1 recently or something but most of its missions only took about a half hour to finish too. The only hour plus missions I can think of are the last mission of the original Protoss campaign and the last mission of Brood War.

Eh... I got significantly less gameplay and enjoyment out of SC2 than I did the original SC. It felt incomplete, the single player offering didn't actually tell a story (we need all 3 parts to get the story), and the game overall seemed... easier than SC1 (though the last mission was a little bit difficult). Multiplayer is the only robust offering, and I can't see that changing much in the next two releases, which I imagine are going to be full priced releases. If they're 30 bucks they'll be a decent value, but somehow I doubt it.

Let's be honest. If this had any other developer's name on it other than Blizzard there would have been hell and damnation over the initial offering of SC2.

AnointedSword wrote on May 29, 2011, 00:03:I have sc2, it is collecting virtual dust:/

Yeah I finally got around to playing the campaign 2+ months after I bought the game when it came out. It was fun (not great) and I enjoyed the single player far more than I remember enjoying sc1 campaigns. That said, all the changes to multiplayer, namely only bnet meant I have not touched multiplayer but once or twice. I haven't fired up the game in almost 6 months. Combine that with $60 x3 and meh. Maybe I'll pick up the next 2 parts when they're on sale.

Thoe most over rated piece of shit game of the Century. There is no depth to this game and it lacks any appeal. Units and structures are like paper and get shreaded. They had a chance to reinvent this game and stuck with the old crappy concept of game play with updated graphics.

While I focus on the single player campaign myself, I think we all have to admit that for Blizzard, the real payoff is the multiplayer. So I guess we'll see what gets changed with that to determine what's going on with the game. Although I'll say now: if they are charging full price for this expansion pack - and that's what it is, I certainly won't be buying it.

Thoe most over rated piece of shit game of the Century. There is no depth to this game and it lacks any appeal. Units and structures are like paper and get shreaded. They had a chance to reinvent this game and stuck with the old crappy concept of game play with updated graphics.

Flatline wrote on May 28, 2011, 17:38:My problem with SC2 is that while there may be a lot of missions, the overall gameplay length was somewhere around one campaign from SC2 since so many missions were completable in about half an hour. So despite claims to the contrary, it really is paying full price for 3 chapters.

Maybe you haven't played Starcraft 1 recently or something but most of its missions only took about a half hour to finish too. The only hour plus missions I can think of are the last mission of the original Protoss campaign and the last mission of Brood War.

My guess is either all the haters hate that SCII couldn't give them their youth back or they exaggerate SC1's campaign length because the game did less to keep the mission rolling. I know I took ages in my first SC1 play-through (I actually thought it was pretty boring, heh), never attack unless you're at 200/200 etc. But when I replayed it last year I breezed through most of them in half an hour as you say.

SCII has a much better mission design but that makes it harder to stretch each and every one of them to an 2h turtle fest. And if you grade games only by their potential as time sink then obviously Blizzard sold out (which is stupid. In every way. Especially for SCII where custom maps will keep even the multiplayer-haters entertained)